The Fort Worth Press - Ukraine: Problem with the ceasefire?

USD -
AED 3.672703
AFN 70.498252
ALL 91.249977
AMD 392.339961
ANG 1.802809
AOA 914.999825
ARS 1067.615205
AUD 1.56568
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.700677
BAM 1.794534
BBD 2.019718
BDT 121.536873
BGN 1.791275
BHD 0.37685
BIF 2915.5
BMD 1
BND 1.332
BOB 6.911865
BRL 5.686204
BSD 1.000317
BTN 86.853357
BWP 13.600829
BYN 3.273631
BYR 19600
BZD 2.009341
CAD 1.42835
CDF 2874.999912
CHF 0.88092
CLF 0.024155
CLP 926.920277
CNY 7.23785
CNH 7.227185
COP 4090.56
CRC 498.956302
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 101.550191
CZK 22.962302
DJF 177.719955
DKK 6.83594
DOP 62.703576
DZD 133.497055
EGP 50.510597
ERN 15
ETB 129.349818
EUR 0.916295
FJD 2.278978
FKP 0.772807
GBP 0.769775
GEL 2.784958
GGP 0.772807
GHS 15.442628
GIP 0.772807
GMD 71.491246
GNF 8681.521872
GTQ 7.704334
GYD 208.983874
HKD 7.76995
HNL 25.633759
HRK 6.903601
HTG 133.082964
HUF 366.757803
IDR 16365.153292
ILS 3.64903
IMP 0.772807
INR 86.949253
IQD 1310.371863
IRR 42002.616039
ISK 133.993688
JEP 0.772807
JMD 156.511217
JOD 0.709004
JPY 149.024963
KES 129.702938
KGS 87.450009
KHR 4000.792835
KMF 452.166893
KPW 900
KRW 1451.538345
KWD 0.308081
KYD 0.820005
KZT 501.874734
LAK 21673.796803
LBP 90370.436087
LKR 295.334135
LRD 199.166194
LSL 18.167609
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.604889
LYD 4.812801
MAD 9.687262
MDL 17.770017
MGA 4674.731518
MKD 56.37001
MMK 2099.984052
MNT 3472.481905
MOP 8.006124
MRU 39.926126
MUR 44.958647
MVR 15.46
MWK 1733.328504
MXN 19.951975
MYR 4.446102
MZN 63.639411
NAD 18.167609
NGN 1547.722953
NIO 36.624409
NOK 10.53641
NPR 139.184017
NZD 1.717667
OMR 0.384994
PAB 1
PEN 3.658308
PGK 4.061712
PHP 57.260464
PKR 280.090389
PLN 3.828826
PYG 7990.336833
QAR 3.640091
RON 4.572641
RSD 107.724204
RUB 85.499741
RWF 1404.777444
SAR 3.750241
SBD 8.499789
SCR 14.92221
SDG 598.962615
SEK 10.087845
SGD 1.333696
SHP 0.785843
SLE 22.829682
SLL 20969.501083
SOS 571.789733
SRD 36.319975
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.74982
SYP 13001.94068
SZL 18.167609
THB 33.538249
TJS 10.937394
TMT 3.500179
TND 3.077978
TOP 2.403818
TRY 36.626985
TTD 6.808822
TWD 32.972358
TZS 2629.952657
UAH 41.623311
UGX 3665.572886
UYU 42.588349
UZS 12938.153443
VES 66.275499
VND 25504.999004
VUV 122.957433
WST 2.818496
XAF 602.88919
XAG 0.029563
XAU 0.000333
XCD 2.7
XDR 0.750475
XOF 602.88919
XPF 109.677643
YER 248.484335
ZAR 18.083075
ZMK 9001.193505
ZMW 28.73323
ZWL 321.999592
  • RBGPF

    -0.4100

    66.02

    -0.62%

  • BCC

    0.6500

    100

    +0.65%

  • SCS

    0.0200

    11.01

    +0.18%

  • GSK

    0.7600

    40.25

    +1.89%

  • RELX

    0.6700

    49.6

    +1.35%

  • CMSC

    0.1100

    23.33

    +0.47%

  • CMSD

    0.1900

    23.54

    +0.81%

  • RIO

    0.4300

    63.47

    +0.68%

  • BCE

    0.2300

    23.7

    +0.97%

  • JRI

    0.1700

    13

    +1.31%

  • NGG

    0.9300

    64.14

    +1.45%

  • RYCEF

    0.1000

    10.45

    +0.96%

  • AZN

    -0.2300

    77.37

    -0.3%

  • VOD

    0.3100

    9.86

    +3.14%

  • BTI

    0.4800

    41.84

    +1.15%

  • BP

    0.3700

    33.76

    +1.1%


Ukraine: Problem with the ceasefire?




As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its fourth year, a new proposal for a 30-day ceasefire has emerged from U.S. diplomatic circles, touted as a potential stepping stone to de-escalation. Russia's nefarious dictator and war criminal Vladimir Putin (72) has signalled cautious receptivity, provided the truce addresses the "root causes" of the conflict, while Ukrainian leaders remain wary. On the surface, a pause in hostilities offers a glimmer of relief for a war-weary population. Yet, beneath the diplomatic veneer, the proposed ceasefire is riddled with problems—strategic, political, and practical—that threaten to undermine its viability and, worse, exacerbate an already volatile situation.

A Temporary Fix with No Clear Endgame
The most glaring issue with the ceasefire is its brevity. At 30 days, it offers little more than a fleeting respite, unlikely to resolve the deep-seated issues fuelling the war. Russia’s demand to tackle "root causes"—a thinly veiled reference to its territorial ambitions and opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—clashes directly with Kyiv’s insistence on full sovereignty and the restoration of pre-2014 borders. Without a framework for meaningful negotiations, the ceasefire risks becoming a mere intermission, allowing both sides to regroup and rearm rather than pursue peace.

Historical precedent supports this scepticism. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, intended to halt fighting in eastern Ukraine, collapsed amid mutual accusations of bad faith. A short-term truce now, absent a robust enforcement mechanism or mutual trust, could follow a similar trajectory, leaving civilians to bear the brunt when hostilities inevitably resume.

The Strategic Dilemma for Ukraine
For Ukraine, the ceasefire poses a strategic conundrum. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent years rallying domestic and international support around the mantra of "no concessions" to Russian aggression. Pausing the fight now, especially after the recent loss of territory in Russia’s Kursk region, could be perceived as a sign of weakness, emboldening Moscow and disheartening Kyiv’s allies. Ukrainian commanders, including Oleksandr Syrskii, have prioritised preserving troop strength, but a ceasefire might freeze their forces in disadvantageous positions, particularly along the eastern front, where Russia continues to press its advantage.

Moreover, the timing is suspect. The temporary suspension of U.S. intelligence support earlier this year left Ukraine reeling, and while that assistance has resumed, Kyiv remains on the back foot. A ceasefire now could lock in Russia’s recent gains, including reclaimed territory in Kursk, without guaranteeing reciprocal concessions. For a nation fighting for survival, this asymmetry is a bitter pill to swallow.

Russia’s Leverage and Bad Faith
On the Russian side, the ceasefire proposal raises questions of intent. Putin’s willingness to entertain a truce comes as his forces, bolstered by North Korean reinforcements, have regained momentum. The Kremlin may see the pause as an opportunity to consolidate control over occupied regions, reinforce supply lines, and prepare for a spring offensive—all while avoiding the political cost of appearing to reject peace outright. Moscow’s track record of violating ceasefires, from Donbas to Syria, fuels Ukrainian fears that any lull would be exploited rather than honoured.

The involvement of North Korean troops adds another layer of complexity. Their presence, a breach of international norms, has drawn muted criticism from Western powers, yet the ceasefire proposal does not explicitly address this escalation. Without mechanisms to monitor or reverse such foreign involvement, the truce risks legitimising Russia’s reliance on external support, further tilting the battlefield in its favour.

The Humanitarian Paradox
Proponents argue that a ceasefire would alleviate civilian suffering, particularly as winter tightens its grip on Ukraine’s battered infrastructure. Yet, this humanitarian promise is fraught with paradox. Russia has repeatedly targeted energy grids and civilian areas, a tactic likely to persist during any truce unless explicitly prohibited and enforced. A 30-day pause might allow limited aid delivery, but without guarantees of safety or a longer-term commitment, it could also delay the broader reconstruction Ukraine desperately needs.

For Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons—numbering in the millions—a temporary ceasefire offers no clarity on when, or if, they can return home. Meanwhile, Russian authorities in occupied territories have accelerated "Russification" efforts, including forced conscription and passportisation, which a short truce would do little to halt.

The Absence of Enforcement
Perhaps the most damning flaw is the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Who would monitor compliance? The United Nations, hamstrung by Russia’s Security Council veto, is ill-equipped to intervene. NATO, while supportive of Ukraine, has stopped short of direct involvement, and independent observers lack the authority to deter violations. Without a credible arbiter, the ceasefire hinges on goodwill—a commodity in short supply after years of bloodshed and broken promises.

A Fragile Hope Undermined by Reality
The proposed ceasefire reflects a well-intentioned but flawed attempt to pause a war that defies easy resolution. For Ukraine, it risks entrenching losses without securing gains; for Russia, it offers a chance to regroup under the guise of diplomacy. For both, it lacks the substance to bridge their irreconcilable aims. As the U.S. and its allies prepare to table the proposal, they must confront an uncomfortable truth: a truce that fails to address the conflict’s underlying drivers—or to enforce its terms—may do more harm than good, prolonging a war it seeks to pause.

In Kyiv, where resilience has become a way of life, the mood is one of cautious defiance. "We want peace," a senior Ukrainian official remarked this week, "but not at the cost of our future." Until the ceasefire’s proponents can answer that concern, its promise remains as fragile as the front lines it aims to still.